Burnt Orange Report

Conason's writing is short but to the point. But another reminder of progressive's contributions is a speech by Bill Moyers.

http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2003/

I am sorry, but I DO not contribute all of the Nation's clean air, and Industrial Revolution milestones to ONE liberal voice. I think that liberals definitely push the envelope on many issues, but I will not give them sole credit to things that involved so many others. If I remember history class correctly FDR was responsible for the allocation of land for National Parks... I also don't remember reading about him as a liberal, but as a Democrat.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being liberal but I don't see why they seemingly take all the credit for things in the US that are good. The article sited here seems to be giving an immense amount of credit to things that liberals aren't totally responsible for, but definitely took a part in. I am sure that certain individuals spoke out on these issues in their time (and still do), and could be called liberal in some sense. I don’t believe that the only Americans speaking out against the wrongs of an ill society/government are strictly based on liberal ideals or of a liberal voice. Nor do I think that political affiliation is the sole basis for these battles being fought. I think that as Americans we have fought for centuries to have what other countries and rulers had robbed us of. I think that as Americans, we struggle to get what is right, but not because of one voice, but because of the voices of several and the efforts of many.
I have many people in my life that are liberal, and for some reason they do the same thing that the afore article does, take credit for certain historical events that may or may not have been devised and carried out by “liberals”. Or claim to be a sort of separatist group that has a much higher IQ than the general populous because they don’t buy into the mainstream, or some sort of “Conspiracy Theory” propaganda. To be clearer, I think that liberals have an important place in the US, but so do Republicans and Democrats. I think diversity is the very thing that makes American culture, history, and politics so interesting and great to be part of… in my humble opinion.
PS. Social Security is still in the pisser and I don't think that even the liberals can save it.

Actually, Erin, many saw (and continue to see) FDR as a socialist leading our country too far to the left.

And the word "liberal" is meaningless, since its historical meaning more closely describes conservatism of the semi-libertarian variety, but in actual, present day use is simply an ad hominem dismissal.

Grand Moff Texan,
What exactly is your point? Not being a snot, but a little confused as to the FDR reference and the semantics of the word liberal.
The intention of my response was not to debate FDR and his political affiliation, (which varies from history book to history book) but to point out that I think the article is slighted and not necessarily accurate.

BTW, I like that title, "Grand Moff Texan"...

Julian Sanchez offers a critique of Conason.

My favorite Conason piece was this one from just over a year ago.
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2002/07/22/bush/index.html

In it he described the so-called "Green Party" as, "luring voters who worry about Republican policies, while ensuring that Republican power is enhanced."

Erin: I was just picking nits. It's easy to overlook just how radical FDR was at that time and the flack he took for it.

Glad you got the reference!

Grand Moff Texan,
NP... just wanted to make sure I wasn't being an idiot and missing some higher meaning. Thanks for clarifying, and doing so nicely. :) On a side note, this article has stirred up some real controversy on other blogs like the afore link that Mark Harden offers... that had like 85 posts. Got pretty nasty, so I say again, thanks for being a gentleman. :) You Grand Moff Texan, you. *snickers

Golly, thanks liberals! I'd been under the misguided impression that these things were primarily made possible by technological development and economic growth, but it's good to be set straight.

If that's a rebuttal, then the state of argument is in sad shape.

Since Sanchez responded to a list of specific items, I'm guessing he's ignorant of that each one of these were progressive initiatives in the late 19th century/early 20th century.

Technology may have improved our means of producing edible food and drinkable water, but without the laws requiring that and without, more to the point, progressives, we did not reliably have good food and clean water. We had technology for seatbelts, but it took government to have them installed.

Conason's point is to remind folks to avoid absolutist denunciations of government while, in this climate of calling liberals treasonous among other things, listing what liberals and progressives have done that is good.

Obviously, it worked because I didn't see anywhere in the so-called rebuttal a claim that these achievements were bad. Instead, there's a weak attempt to dismiss these accomplishments as merely the outgrowth of technology. Child labor? Oh technology and economic growth took care of that. Minimum wage and forty-hour work week? Economic growth brought that about.

Practically every one of these issues was a battle, sometimes literally with the loss of life, such as the Ludlow Massacre.

It is foolish for anyone, however, to think that government is always good. That, I think, is the wrongheaded assumption about liberals--that we want "big government." Liberals and progressives that I know personally don't think about how to make government bigger. They're focused on problems, how to solve them. In many cases, they solve the problem with their time, effort, and resources--from cleaning up parks to building affordable housing. The church that I attend is very much like that, a liberal congregation that constantly draws on its members for many different causes.

However, some problems--some--require the government. Some simple-minded liberals squawk "new law" without thinking. In some cases, again such as Ludlow, the government was party to the problem.

TX Bubba-
"Conason's point is to remind folks to avoid absolutist denunciations of government while, in this climate of calling liberals treasonous among other things, listing what liberals and progressives have done that is good."

I am not going to speak for Sanchez, but I will say that the list that Conason provides for "what liberal and progressives have done that is good" is kind of what lead me to believe that the list is slighted. There again, perhaps I am being a bit picky with your choice of wording, but I firmly believe that Americans fought for what they needed to make this a better place. I don't think that the list is a direct indication of STRICTLY their (liberal) accomplishments.
Also, I used your quote above because that may in fact be what Conason's article meant to you but to others it seems arrogant, and possibly incorrect, because let's face it... no one really knows for usre because it is history, and we weren't there. So in playing Devil's Advocate, I could be wrong... damnit. *snickers again

You know, come to think of it, perhaps this is what makes controversy. Someone writes an article and doesn't really explain their viewpoint, so they leave the reader to assume the article's intention... then again perhaps that is what we do regardless of how well the writer explains.

I firmly believe that Americans fought for what they needed to make this a better place. I don't think that the list is a direct indication of STRICTLY their (liberal) accomplishments.

You don't think that these should be considered liberal or progressive accomplishments. As in people other than liberals helped bring these conditions about.

Probably so in some ways. As a party, the Progressive Party life was pretty short. Yet, they influenced both of the major parties. TR is considered a progressive Republican. Sometimes, people do things not because they believe in them but because they are politically compelled. I have my doubts that JFK really cared about civil rights. I don't think FDR was a socialist.

I never read it to mean that absolutely no one else helped bring about these things, but historically, these have been causes that progressives championed. For years, whenever I've talked with someone conservative about politics, I've pointed to a list very similar to this one and said, "This is the sort of thing that I believe in." I've seen conservatives understand this is not the same as wanting "big government." So, it's helped move the discussion positively.

I really think it's a stretch to read this, as I've seen on the Sanchez web site, as a denouncement of other parties because at one time, progressives were found in both parties.

I'm also aware that liberal and progressive are not truly interchangeable.

Conason's context is, I think he says, Ann Coulter's attacks on liberals. It's certainly my context while reading it.

At the same, Erin, for some, the question of how much and when to protect people is a dividing line among libertarians, conservatives, progressives, and liberals. And it's a good debate to have.

Well said...